Every policy strives to concentrate, to gather within itself as many branches of human activity as possible so that the power of government is as comprehensive, as total, as "popular", etc. Simply put, that has always been its nature and will always be so.
One of the branches of human activity that politics uses in a specific way is fashion. This applied aesthetics is used by the government as a propaganda tool in order to consolidate (and “aestheticize”) its power and the power of its ideology over society. (Fascism, for example, brought this human activity to perfection. It built its own rhythm of time, according to its Aryan plan. It is about the rhythm of death of all peoples who were not of Aryan origin.)
But let's immediately state one (opposite) anti-ideological observation when it comes to women's and men's lifestyles (fashion) and their daily pursuits, intertwinings, and prestige.
Namely, Checkers done They never use their fashion style (wardrobe, clothes) to draw men's attention to themselves and their "figure". On the contrary. Women "chase fashion" for the sake of other women and their prestige in the mutual competition of personal aesthetics. In this pursuit of fashion, men are neither important nor on their aesthetic horizon.
In short, men are collateral damage in the aesthetic battle between ladies.
This kind of aesthetic judgment is easily derived from an experience in which one cannot find a male person who would say to a friend ""Look at the clothes this lady is wearing."And women say that to each other.
It's the other way around for men. They "chase fashion" to be noticed by a lady or ladies.
Let's conclude.
The pursuit of fashion - whether ideological or personal - are hidden and little-visible paths of struggle for aesthetics between figures of different genders: authorities, women, men...
But no matter how one approaches fashion (ideologically or individually), it is impossible to do without political and party propaganda. Normally, propaganda takes place through and through global and local fashion houses.
The deeper and more hidden root of fashion as a lifestyle, therefore, is easy to find in to propagate. It is an important means of mass "aestheticization" of society with the aim of its formal unification. (Because a unified society is easier to govern.)
Ali, nothing in society is accidental, as he observes in one play Shakespeare. Not even in fashion. The aestheticization of society in the state is created by the government through large fashion houses. (Among the fascists, the most famous fashion house was Hugo Boss, for example.)
A long time ago, my neighbor "out of the blue" detected - and even defined - politics as: a clash of power from below and above.
I guess he wanted to say that there is no politics without the "encounter" (collision) of history and tradition on the one hand and the vision of human consciousness on the other.
Practically speaking. The power of politics is to be able to concentrate the accumulated problems of society (past and future) in "one" point, and to build an efficient system which optimally solves numerous needs of citizens. On this "corner point" various aesthetic, ethical and numerous other political visions of life in a society and state are built.
And let's return to fashion as an aesthetic mirror of power.
Every government tries to create and establish its own type of fashion, i.e. its own group "aesthetics". In this way, the ruling group and its ideology gain their new political image. (Normally, every image of government is different from ideology to ideology, from policy to policy.)
Totalitarian systems from time immemorial to the present day have used this fashion trick to deceive their people, by pulling a new, "modern" shirt over their heads that ties at the back.
The ideological system of communism used this psycho-ideological trick so that no one stood out in society. Naturally, except for the "new class" (party bureaucracy) in communism, which was outside, i.e. above and beyond, these standards of behavior.
In the context of the widespread and mass aestheticization of Yugoslav society, numerous communist fighters found themselves “aestheticized.” This means that numerous factories, streets, farms, airports, cities, hospitals, schools, etc. were named after them. This aesthetic banality and even vulgarity was widespread throughout the country.
Immediately after the war, the local and central "new class" massively used their names to immortalize the victors of the war, thus entering history and placing their image in the ideological pantheon.
Even cities were "aestheticized" through propaganda, i.e. they were named after local leaders. (Josip Broz had the privilege of having one city in each Yugoslav republic named after Tito or a coin with that name.)
(The most "aestheticization" was in the names of the factories. Because it was - probably - assumed - that a factory that bears the name of a national hero or bears the name of JB Tito cannot and must not operate at a loss or - God forbid - go bankrupt.)
Milovan Djilas was a great opponent of this "aestheticization" of society and the misuse of "aesthetics" for party and state purposes. On February 24, 1948, he sent a short letter (letter) Andru Mugoshi, then the leading Montenegrin politician.
In the letter, he explains his stance as a resistance to the misuse of his image for propaganda purposes. Here is the full letter: "I read in Politika that the local board of Žabljak is proposing to rename itself after me. This should definitely be prevented as... inappropriate. I'm surprised how this can be proposed without your knowledge, on your own initiative."
Therefore, Milovan Đilas elevated the intention of the local authorities to the level of serious criticism and objection to the irresponsible behavior of the leading representative of the "new class" in Titograd.
On a deeper and less visible side, the letter clearly indicates the level of Đilas' anti-slavism. For one of the anathemas that was parroted after his fall from power (1954) was his extreme and sickly ambition.
The aestheticization of society continued until the early 50s. The Central Committee of the Communist Party of Yugoslavia decided that only the names of soldiers who died in the war could be used in the aestheticization of society. But not the names of living soldiers. (Josip Broz Tito was left out of this decision, because his charisma had already overpowered and defeated Yugoslav society.)
One of the initiators of this decision was Milovan Đilas.
Let's conclude.
Today, aesthetics have changed. There is no one who would find it normal for a factory, a combine or a school to be named after a current Montenegrin politician: "Andrija Mandić", "Milojko Spajić" or "Milo Đukanović" for example. This is partly due to Đilas's merit.
All in all. In the past, propaganda through "aesthetics" celebrated and served personality and ideas. Today, propaganda and its "aesthetics" serve and celebrate - money.
It's hard to say which is worse for society: communist ambition or today's greed.
Bonus video:
